quickly, as that is getting better and better the public safety agency handling irene or katrina or something more small-scale if information is curator and available to the public and the resolution and speed that has good fit this, to lie and reliability or is there a problem if i ignore that? if it is available and respond as usual that that is a better source of information? maybe that is not answerable. ..

>> i wouldn't want to venture a specific guess on that. but it's a risk, you know. i don't know how to answer better than that. >> thank you, deborah, and yes, sir, in the back. >> i work with cna which is not the insurance company, but center for naval analysis here outside d.c. i work on the safety and security team. i've led research efforts. i've had a question to fall upon what we're talking about mr. robson. you started talking about this issue of liability for the volunteer, technology communities, and the example you gave was a re-tweeted of misleading or misinformation. and that perhaps opening up that community or particular organization to some liability. but i guess i would push you further, and then just curious,

and i'm glad we broke this out into kind of a different liabilities for the various communities because i do think there are unique questions. i'm curious as to why did you take that step to liability for the committee as opposed to the individual who initially placed that information out there? kind of recent i was watching the twitter feed through hurricane irene and the recent earthquake. i saw specific individuals, individuals who maybe had 100,000, 1 million followers, several approaches re-tweeted misinformation and later going back apologizing, after it was led that it was misinformation fix on just curious as to why did you stop at that committee aspect and not place any of that liability on the individual? >> there may be liability for the individual. i stopped there from a purely

pragmatic reasons, that most plaintiffs attorneys have no interest in suing individual. so to the extent there is an organization that is financially viable and have some type of insurance, they are much more important part than a single individual. and it's an interesting question, in this become a tourist there was a question as to whether it would make sense to limit liability with some sort of corporate structuring. and that's a difficult question. you want to form your 501(c)(3) so you get tax deductions, and at the same time you may putting a target on your back as opposed to sort of an informal group of folks who get together, if something goes wrong they just disappear and vanish and there's no one to sue. so, you know, i guess there's some different ideas there. but the reason i jumped to the

community aspect was purely practical. i just don't, i don't see too many claims going out against individuals. >> excellent question. thank you. would any other palace like to offer -- >> is to offer a different perspective. i understand the nature of legal advice and why you need it. i saw it often. but i put myself in a place of a first responder, the two sworn gentlemen that are here. they have a call to respond. it's in the interest of the human response we have in all of us. so every time i had advice my attorney general or other people who were saying you better be careful on this, you shouldn't do that, or this is a way we can say no, i would say my obligation is to find a way to say yes. oh i would couch it in the same terms. you need the wisdom of achieve, of a captain, who can say in the context of the situation this smells, or this one is a

legitimate response. so the wisdom of years, the experience, the professionalism makes a big difference on top of the legal part of it. you have to make a choice. how much is in the public interest and how much is in the private interest. so i would only add to the need for the legal opinion by saying you also need to balance that would find a way to say yes. >> excellent. thank you. yes, question on this site. >> john nystrom. my first question is for you, chief werner. what reliability issues associated with crowdsourced and volunteered information in cash to impact your ability to use in daily operations? meaning, having known users in your community are interacting with you daily, not just during an event. and the second one for you, ms. graham is sort of the liability issues that we talked

about. and the recommendations to leadership and others not to use these things, sort of turned off until it is figure out and sort of how can we get past those issues? >> to start, i think the fight of us having people that we have credible contributors, let's just use community emergency response team as an example, made one of the first level of resilience accord people we might create. one, the interaction that takes place on a regular basis creates the relationship of credibility, makes the information that comes to me as a public state responder much more effective. were asked if you just get a plethora of tweets as you notice once you look at hurricane irene, when i was looking through social media you see everything from things that are pretty irene, pictures, to post iran pictures, two pictures that have nothing to do with irene. or maybe another irene.

[laughter] so i think that relationship really changes the credibility of the value of that inner workings on a daily basis. >> and, you know, we've never said don't use anything. the approach we've always taken it as i make sure that i not use the technology. so i've worked with our program to play with the tools before we fully turn everything on. and one thing that most people don't realize, a lot of lawyers are technologically illiterate. so, a lot of, it takes having a program person to understand the technology, giving them an account, dumbing them down and make them use it so they understand how it works so you can spot the issues and then come up with a solution. and some of the times you can't turn every tool on, but the approach we've always taken is we turn on immediately what we

can turn on, and then keep evaluating and keep looking at how we can make it work. so, for example, at first we didn't take photos on her facebook page. but as we realized okay, we will moderate, we will put the photo license up their so then we can then add that in as it goes a long. so start basic and then keep redoing it, analyzing to get to the next day. that may take a few more days, a few more weeks to get there. so it's an evolving process as the technology advances. >> excellent. thank you. >> i wanted to add, you know, we talked a lot about the organization and responsibility in trying to separate the two. i would say that the crowd is out there, the crowd is creating this data. people are looking at this day. these emergency response organizations, fema, are looking at the data. what we are trying to do is fill a gap. and to close the technology gap.

not to necessarily be this island off doing this work independently. just like cert volunteers can help staff augmented emergency responders or crowd control, we can help many of the volunteer technology communities believe we can help to close the technology gaps. and that means from an information perspective, technology conference he perspective, to help train and educate folks in these communities about how technology can help. and that's more the informal sort of relationship as opposed to formally we create a map and you use it. so i think is a couple different perspectives to consider. >> excellent, thank you. i was going to give you a list them minute to defend those technologically illiterate attorneys, but we will move on. [laughter] >> i follow on twitter. >> can i say one thing? i think the credibility of to your tweeting into your receiving tweets from is very

helpful in the sense that since i've been sitting here i've been reading the tweets from different places. there's an issue first of all let me go disclaimer. i have no validation of information i'm about to provide to you in this conversation. but there's an issue with a suspicious package in miami airport. i've seen david blankenship has been getting regular updates after what's been taking place in this meeting here to people that are following him. i've seen where my local tv station has put up or call for volunteers to help fulfill a drill that's happening september 19, and i've seen the updated twitter that's come out from fema about the tropical storm, and i've looked at the map to see what the map is taking. it looks like it is jogging north and i've got my fingers crossed. i just want to see the fluid and credibility of people that you makes a difference in the information you are receiving. >> excellent, thank you. additional questions from the audience.

>> i had a question for ms. cramer, and i'm hoping chief werner may want to chime in as well. chief werner ventured a portal from the different applications and technical services, and it's my understanding that the federal government has different user agreements with twitter and facebook. and i guess i was curious as to how you may see those user agreement changing and those user agreements helping resolve some of these questions? >> i negotiated the first one. so, the user agreements differences between the general terms of service and the government version are basically changing about three clauses. the one clause the government can't sign is the indemnification clause, because that's an open-ended liability and violates appropriations law. so we just changed that to represent the federal tort claim

act, which covers the. then most of the agreement say that any disagreements will be held in the state of california. and, obviously, due to sovereign immunity the federal government can't be sued in state court so we asked them to go to federal court. and then one of the other issues that comes up all the time is a confidentiality clause. and under the rim of information act we have to release information so we put a clause in there that says we will release it personal to foia. those are the three issues that come up all the time. there's no point in renegotiating if we're going to change into ms. those are the things that are what we do as a government attorneys to make those changes. we been very successful in negotiating those with the social media companies. it takes a while to explain the indemnification clause issue, but once i get on the phone with

the attorney for about 15 minutes we are usually good. so, the hard part is some of these companies only have five people, and their attorney is $500 an hour and they don't want to talk to the government and pay $500 an hour to make a change. that's the biggest problem we have. >> thank you, judy. any other panelists want to comment on the question? seeing then we'll move on to additional questions in the audience. >> yes, on this site. good afternoon. i'm carla, i'm a practitioner turned strategist turned policy. so it's good that there were some recommendations from the panel to develop policy and procedures ahead of time to help

maybe reduce the amount of liability that we might undertake. so my question is kind of twofold. does anyone on the panel have some suggestions as to an approach on how to develop some of these policies, maybe some best practices in policy development? and do you see any differences in the strategies and policies from the federal government to the state to the local government? >> jodi first and then the chief. >> fema develop a web 2.0 policy. got signed in december, i think we're one of the first government agencies to actually have a web 2.0 policy. is more on the creation of web 2.2 tools. plus some of the employee usage and a personal capacity, which is a concern for us. so we've actually been working on sop's for every tool we use. and working with the program,

our legal and policy to work together to put together these policies to make sure that everyone follows the rules. and they are basically procedure based, that you have to, our big thing is we start working as one team. so when we work on a tool that our public affairs office, internal facing is evolved, our chief information officer is involved, our cybersecurity office is all because we are afraid of attacks. our privacy office, and our legal office. and deadly of all, i call it we identify all the issues, tell you what's wrong with it and didn't tell you how to fix it. so that's kind of our procedural policy at looking at how we use each tool, and then coming up with specific solutions for the tool itself. >> and i guess what i'd like to add is when you're looking at the policies that you put in social media, one of the things that's probably not a good idea to do is try to define each and every social media application

that is out there. it's more to be specifically general, and the way that you cover policy as how it's created to the sharing of information, the use of photographs and said it. i will say the department element scared is also develop documents a practice website for public safety to go into and actually see a number of examples of social media from other places. i'm also on the social media working group which also provides information as far as general guidelines about social media and how public safety can take advantage of using social media. >> thank you. great question. iany other panels have observations? >> i would say one of the key things is to decide what information you could derive from social media, or on the other hand volunteer geographic information. in the gis community we have standards. where the open geospatial consortium. that's the type of thing that makes gis data definable,

usable, or at least its capacity to be put in that category. get the thing that it is is introduced on, how do you quantify or standardize that. there needs to be a policy on how does that influence the decision-makers. it's going to influence people who have a public responsibility, governor, fire chief or someone like that. so the policy would be how do deal with this type of information, what use can you make of it, should you make of it, if you do need the advice of legal people, the standard where you can apply them would be important, training, preparation in advance, and for anybody in the volunteer community, education and training in addition to what they already have. so that they understand there's a policies and practices that could enable the feeling of those gaps in a standardized way. >> thank you. let me note. it is 4:00. i know the agenda said we were wrapping up at 4:00, but if we have additional questions we would go beyond that because i don't want to slow this great

dialogue down. so we will go on for some period of time if we have additional questions. spent not a question but a statement. i'd like to add that one of the things we have seen with social media is that the inappropriate use of social media to give out information from it, that are very sensitive, there's a moral issue, there's a credibility issue, there's a sensitive issue. and the point here is the warning is that if you don't initiate a policies and educate the people as the governor has mentioned, you very quickly can go from heroes to zeros. >> thank you. additional questions? >> i have a question. not quite sure. i guess this goes back to a couple of questions, points that were raised during the panel. and as was said, recommended almost is data structure be developed for the volunteer and

technical technology communities, like the center or emergency response team. this is kind of a two-part question. both of the response agencies and i think also from a legal perspective. obviously, the cert team is a formal sanction part of fema. and so what would be involved to either absorb the ttc into that our setting up a separate structure either that can support public safety agencies at a local level or support to the federal system? >> i've not touched on not our expert, but citizen corps from my knowledge is, someone correct me if i'm wrong, the national focus of the organizations headquartered at fema, but each of the council is nonprofit, that is centered within the

community spirit so while information and training go up and down, and fema provides the training structure that the citizen corps themselves, local affiliates are actually not a part of fema. now, saying that, i don't believe we would need statutory authority to make technical part of citizen corps. and that's probably a programmatic issue to address that from happening. and it may or may not be in the works. i haven't talked to them about that. i know that our citizen corps people are very engaged in web 2.0 activities. and we've been looking at how to engage the community in additional communities here and looking at how to create communities for the prepared his community, both on the individual and the organizations perspective. one of the things we just launch is national preparedness month

community which is a pilot of organizations that are involved in national preparedness month which is next month, activities. so that could lead to more communities of trusted sources to go into situational awarene awareness. >> i could just add, so from my perspective, and this is just one perspective, and i hope to have my facts correct, but through the cert committees within the state of illinois, and i believe it's regulated at the state level, you know, which is one of our domestic concerns because there's the national law and in the state laws. but at the state level, cert volunteers within a state of illinois are protected under the volunteer loss of the state of illinois. if they stay within their confines training, if they tend to go outside of their training, then they do put themselves at a

additional by build and risk, not only themselves but their organizations. so i think what one of the proposals was to consider, you know, is there some level setting up training that sort of educates the volunteers that can provide them with the tools and the knowledge and the skills to act as a trusted sort of source, gaining some of those responsibility and then being protected under sort of the volunteer act. if we remain within our turn. on the flipside of that, like i really love your find a way to say yes, that's going to be my new tagline on twitter today. so find a way to say yes. you know, sometimes if we try to put ourselves in these boxes, i think that one of the perspectives would like to think is that, there's an opportunity for innovation, and for things that we haven't thought about doing, but with that comes risk.

personal risk, organizational risk. i think after haiti the committee of the 2000 people, and we just sort of had a collective sigh of relief that nobody was getting sued, nobody was, you know, have put anybody in harm's way, you know, that we know what. our actions actually furthered the effort. but through that there were also some sort of envelope pushing moments of new technology ideas that people didn't even think about that were brought forth and sort of, you know, so not only was there no training, it was a moment of innovation. and so, i think that we looked to both work and respond within the defined training and box. if there's a certain responsibility should come with a. i also think though, to the extent that we can try to find ways to innovate and push those envelopes as well.

>> excellent, thank you. >> if i could add, you know, i don't think there needs to be necessary a formal structure, where do you put this group. we have volunteers of all types. we have individual families have volunteered to come in and cook food when workers are working. we have the red cross. and we have the community emergency response team. so where to put them operationally or organizationally, i don't think it's such a challenge. in fact, what i think i need to hear is we need an attorney full-time. [laughter] but as far as operationally, by the time, you know, if we get past that what i'm going to call my day-to-day life and get into something that sounds like it's a little more expanded, these disasters or long-term things, we have convergent volunteers, spontaneous volunteers. we have all kinds. what's needed is a way to manage them. and that i think is an incumbent upon as an organization that we

use us. a large part in my case, you have a method of, i do want to say fondling, but necessarily funneling this capability and capacity because it's huge. ipad with the governor, the stuff as long way to fast. it's not processable. i don't even want to open our door to say we can handle anything because it would overwhelm us. how do we generate that they become had we processed the? it's not manageable at the sports i think a place to start is much likely did with the cert program. we got to get some kind of structure that in essence this limitless stuff we're talking about, and boundless and as i mentioned earlier. assassinated by a. it puts some new challenges. ipad over governor what's more. he talked about workflows. the workful here's what we're talking about changing for the fire service. how do we respond when we have somebody send some type of a

request for help? i'm looking at it a little more day-to-day dana m. and despite the heat map thing, and how i would respond to all of these messages if we opened up and put our shingle out and said okay, we can as set all the step it will have enough process. there's just a way to do it that i can think of at the moment. i think the innovation part we're talking about here is some of the smart folks out there in the computer world that can develop these algorithms to automatically process of these things. came across one the other day where we've taken satellite imagery and using algorithms, we can search for things that don't belong in the ocean, sinking ships or whatnot, just to computer analysis. and that's been translated over to searching the wildland for different color light spectral kind of footprint, if you will that says hey, something is burning out here where it should

just be green trees. i think something like that is what's needed for somebody in my world to be able to process the amount of information we are talking about. and we wanted somebody to coordinate that, much like we volunteer coordinators now. >> thanks to achieve as a, and then we'll go to it on 10 -- ed. >> all this is making things happen. it's coming. it will find a way. so the point i want to make is, as were looking at these things went to get social media involved now in the process of nextgen 911. because that's where we're headed is what's next, how's it coming, how this is a comic, what's the volume, what information is valid, how do we maximize them how to get the information to first responders automatically as this becomes through? this is all what happened in a world of technology, and would even need to be proactive about it or we will be reacting to the

information that comes that we are unprepared for. and i think that's critical. >> i don't think the analysis is, you know, find a way to say yes. the answer is yes. the train has left the station. say no is irrelevant. i think the question is is how do we manage that, once the structure. and to a certain extent all you can do is reduce the risk and then, i'm going to get shot on the way out, but that's what insurance is for, right? you know, you can't live in analysis, paralysis. you will never get anything done. you going to go out and respond. it's going to happen. so of course. so, you know, all you can do is reduce and ensure. >> thank you, ed. i really don't want to wrap this up but i think i push this about as far beyond our agenda as they will allow was. this is great dialogue.

so i will give an opportunity, does anyone have any one last final burning comment or question? >> yes, sir. >> i did want to just put it out there for situational awareness. i believe them if i'm not mistaken that there was a pilot program within fema called net card that i think recently, i don't know with results or outcome of that was to start looking at how do we translate that structure from the trend three teams and start a volunteer community. and just kind of situational awareness? >> governor? >> one final word, and that is we're looking for ways to distill things down to where in the final analysis, judgment can be applied. there is no automated, automatic system using technology that would give you the answer. technology can enable choices, judgment has to be applied. ..

>> it's a pleasure to be able to come here today and to thank all the members on this commission for the work that they have done on this issue. this is the way congressional commissions should work. it was bipartisan. it's high energy. it was comprised of highly qualified people who were brought in for a specific period of time. this is a sun setted commission

which is why you're having the outbriefing today and who will continue to maintain very high profile careers out in the community once this is over. they've come up with specific recommendations. as a member of the united states senate and one of two cosponsors that they will be listened to the energy that went into this is greatly appreciated. as someone who spent five years in the pentagon, one as a marine and four as a defense executive it was very clear to me in discussions with a lot of people that i have worked with over the years that in that period when overseas infrastructure and security programs were being put into place in iraq and afghanistan after 9/11, there was something that was clearly wrong. there were good companies as this commission report has been careful to mention, who were

doing a lot of good work but there were a series of structural and leadership deficiencies in terms of how these contracts were being put into place, or a lot of them were being put into place. you could look at the dynamic of what was going on particularly in iraq at the time and it wasn't out of the question to be saying even then that there were billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse taking place without a proper structure. when i came to the senate, one of the eye-openers for me as a member of the senate foreign relations committee is when we had testimony from the department of state discussing $32 billion of programs that were going into iraq reconstruction. and as someone who was -- who spent a good amount of time as a bean counter in the pentagon, i asked if they would provide us on the foreign relations committee a list of the

contracts that had been let. the amounts a list of what the contracts were supposed to do and they could not provide us that list and for months we asked them and they were unable to come up with the list that had been let. so after many discussions with senator claire mccaskill of missouri who had expressed similar concerns as a fellow members of the arm services committee we introduced this legislation in '07. we had to -- like in all legislative proposals up here, we had to give on some areas that we believed in strongly such as accountability, retroactive accountability for some of the abuses that had taken place. we didn't get that. we didn't get the ability to have a subpoena, but what we did get was the structure that was put into place in this commission. and just as importantly we got an agreement so that this would be bipartisan. and that it would be energetic, and it would come to us with the

types of recommendations that could prevent these sorts of actions and abuses in the future. this is what we are receiving formally today. i wanted to come down here and endorse the quality of the performance of all of these individuals, christopher shays and michael thibault, the cochairs, come highly qualified. christopher shays spent 20 years in the united states congress. michael thibault is former deputy director to the defense contract audit agency. and the other members alphabetically, by the way, clark kent ervin of the department of state. grant green undersecretary of state for management and also a former secretary of defense, robert heinke and katherine schinasi former acting drinker for sourcing management in the gao.

charles tiefer, the professor of government contracts, contracts and legislation university of baltimore school of law. dov zakheim former undersecretary of defense comptroller and chief financial officer of the department of defense. their credentials are much broader than what i just read but it will give you the quality of background and experience that went into this commission. with that i'm going to turn it back over to mr. thibault. and, again, express my strong view that these recommendations will be listened to and when appropriate acted on by the united states congress. thank you very much. >> we appreciate all of you coming here this morning, especially senator webb and is grateful for his initiative in creating and supporting the commission. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of the press for attending this briefing on the final report to

the congress of the commission on wartime contracting in iraq and afghanistan. as i said before, i'm mike thibault, i'm the cochair of this commission. with me is my partner, co-chairman christopher shays and fellow commissioners that were previously introduced by senator webb. after these opening remarks, we'll be happy to take any questions that you have. we've provided a summary sheet on the report. at the end of the summary, you'll find all our names and prior affiliations in case you'll want to quote anyone. commissioners will be staying here for a while after the close of the question period, if you want to pursue the specific topics one-on-one. we're here today because the commission has now filed its final report with the presiding officers of the u.s. house of representatives and the u.s. senate. this report is titled "transforming wartime contracting, controlling costs and reducing risk." it's 240 pages and it includes extensive findings of fact and

recommendations, plus, 15 strategic recommendations for reform. we believe that implementing our reform proposals will save great amounts of money and even more importantly, human lives. while improving the diplomatic military and development outcomes in iraq and afghanistan. equally important, our reforms will do the same for future contingencies. whether they take the form of hostilities or humanitarian interventions, overseas or domestic responses to declared emergencies. let me also note that when i said we believe, we, i really meant we. our report has no dissecting views. every finding and every recommendation reflects a bipartisan consensus. as my partner, congressman shays has often stated, you would be truly hard-pressed to tell during our meetings which commissioners were democrat appointees and republican appointees. for almost three years this has

been a collegial and bipartisan effort to serve our country. here's some quick background on our effort. the commission was established by congress in the national defense authorization act in 2008. we're an independent bipartisan body with eight appointed commissioners plus supporting staff. we've conducted 25 public hearings, participated in more than 1,000 meetings and briefings had offices in kabul and baghdad, and issued two interim and five special reports to congress. i'll mention a few highlights and then turn the lectern over to congressman shays for comments on their significance and our recommendations. some key points: total spending on contracts and grants in iraq and afghanistan from fiscal years 2002 projected to the end of this fiscal year, 2011, amounts to $206 billion.

we estimate that 31 to $60 billion of that total has been or is being lost to waste and fraud. we estimate that waste amounts to 10 to 20% of total contract and grant spending and that fraud runs between 5 and 9% of the total. we base these ranges on hearing testimony, our own commission research and nonpublic government documents on fraud research that were performed in theater. we believe as much or more waste may develop as u.s.-funded programs and projects turn out to be unsustainable by the iraqi and afghanistan governments. both government and contractors have contributed to this waste. as to that point, i want to be clear that this report is not about criticizing contractors. it's about criticizing bad contracting, whether that

involves poor planning and management by federal officials or poor performance and misconduct by companies. even if you take the upper range of our waste and fraud estimates, a significant amount of money spent on contracts and grants in theater appears to have been spent effectively. that point is important. the troops certainly feel that way. during our extensive travels in theater, we had -- we heard emphatic appreciation constantly at all levels for the quality and effectiveness of contractor support for the u.s. military effort. our focus on problems derives from our concern that the cost of contract support has been unnecessarily high. and competition -- excuse me, and that government has not effectively managed contracts to promote competition, reward good performance and impose accountability for poor performance and misconduct by

both government and contractor personnel. having said that, i yield to the gentleman from connecticut, co-chairman, christopher shays, thank you. >> you saw mike with his auditor's face, he's usually a lot more upbeat than that, but good morning. to follow up what mike was saying despite some progress the government remains unable to provide effective large-scale contract management and oversight. that fact is troubling because u.s. doctrine is held for more than 20 years that contractors are part of the total force that would be deployed in contingencies. yet, the government was not prepared to go into afghanistan in 2001 or iraq in 2003 using large numbers of contractors. we were not prepared to use contractors and we are still not adequately prepared to use contractors to the scale required. this is even more troubling given that the senior defense officials have testified that

the united states cannot go to war without large-scale contracting support. that fact applies to other contingencies as well such as response to a major natural disaster or a mass casualty terror attack. our report begins with a chapter describing the ways in which the government has become overreliant on contractors by overreliant, we mean they become the default option. contractors have performed some tasks that is reserved for federal personnel, a test that it's required be referred for federal personnel and even those that are legally permitted of contracting out some tasks may be inappropriate and unacceptable risky to u.s. interests. we're deeply concerned that excessive contracting undermines agencies' ability to perform core missions and the scope of contracting is outstripped

federal ability to manage and oversee it. the titles of succeeding chapters describe the problems that the commission has identified in contingency contracting. inherently governmental rules do not guide appropriate use of contractors and contingencies. inattention to contingency contracting leads to massive waste, fraud and abuse. looming sustainment costs risk massive new waste. agencies have not institutionalized contracting as a core function. agency structures and authorities prevent effective coordination. contract competition management and enforcement are ineffective. now, our final chapter explains that the way forward demands reform. we offer 15 strategic recommendations for major reforms to address these problems. the discussions and details appear in various chapters of the report. and appendix a of the report

lists these and the other recommendations we have made. now, this is -- this is our report. we had a second interim report which had a numerous number of recommendations, but they're all compiled in our final document. all of our reports by the way can be viewed and downloaded at the commission website www.wartimecontracting.com. that's www.wartimecontracting.com. now, here are a few of the recommendations from the final report filed today. our third recommendation, phase out use of private security contractors for certain functions. recommendation 7, elevate and expand the authority of military officials responsible for contingency contracting on the joint staff, the combat and commander staff and in the military services. recommendation 8, establish a new dual -- excuse me --

establish a new dual-hatted office of management and budget omb and the national security council, the nsc staff to provide oversight and strategic direction. recommendation 9, create a permanent office of inspector general for inspections office. recommendation 15, congress should enact legislation requiring regular assessment and reporting of agencies' progress in implementing reform recommendations. this last recommendation must not be overlooked. the commission sunsets on september 30th but the problems in contingency contracting do not. there is still time to make a difference in iraq and afghanistan and there will be no contingencies. congress has a vital role to make sure that we are better prepared for new contingencies, overseas or domestic, than we were for iraq and afghanistan. and it is a -- it has also a vital role to avoid unnecessary

new strains on the federal budget. now, unfortunately, the current stress on the budget may discourage members of congress from supporting the investments that some of our recommendations would require. now, having served is one years in congress, i appreciate the difficulty of proposing new spending in a time of revenue constraints. but some of the reforms require no new spending. and some can be made by simply reallocating existing resources. yet, even for reforms that would involve new costs, holding back would be really false economy. with tens of billions of dollars already wasted with the prospect of more to follow and with the risk of recreating these problems the next time america face as contingency denial and delay are not good options. they shouldn't even be an option. the recommendations in the commission's final report will repay themselves many times over in terms of money and mission outcomes. the challenge of implementing

contingency contracting reform will continue for years. we have presented our blueprint. now we can only encourage others to turn our blueprint in solid constructive outcomes. now, finally, on behalf of all the commissioners and staff alike, i want to express our appreciation to the many officials in government, military, academia and industry who cooperated in the commission's research, our hearings, meetings and travel. in particular, we are grateful for the long-standing interests and support of u.s. senator jim webb, claire mccaskill, susan collins and joe lieberman and u.s. representative darrell issa and john tyranny and we appreciate the many members of the media who followed our work and described it to the public and one final point the commissioners wanted to make sure we expressed, we are in awe of our men and women who serve in the military. we pay incredible respect to their sacrifice, those that have been injured, the families that have lost loved ones.

but we also want to include in that list equally the contractors who have lost their lives and the contractors who have been wounded. there have been thousands who have lost their lives and the sad is, it's almost like they have been expendable. they haven't gotten the kind of attention that their deaths require. so we just want to say thank you to the men and women who serve overseas, both in our government, in the military and as well as contractors for our government. we're going to have 1-minute comments from the six commissioners behind me. we were all equal partners. there was really no first among equals. i think bob dixon can affirm that he got gray hair just having to deal with eight commissioners who had strong opinions about things. we're going to start out with katherine schinasi. then we're going to go to dov zakheim and then charles tiefer and then we'll go to bob henke

and then we'll go to grant green and then we'll end up with clark ervin. >> thanks chris i want to restate the website www.wartimecontracting -- >> we're constantly correcting each other. >> thank you. and thanks for your remarks. excuse me. i thought about what in this two-year stint that i've had surprised me? and in many ways there were very few surprises. the outcomes that we found were expected. there are a number of causes that have been around for a long time. many people know what they are. they still aren't getting fixed. but the one thing that did surprise me is the fact that the numbers we're talking about just are not resonating. so 30 to $60 billion doesn't sound like much when you say it every day. but in the report we've broken

that down to $12 million a day. we're waste up to $12 million a day and maybe that will make a difference in the way people are paying attention to this. as we go through the next couple of years, looking at how the government is spending its money, my hope is that we do it do it smartly. part of the reason we're in the position we're in is because the -- because the meat ax that was taken to the acquisition work force in the '80s. we decimated the government work force at the same time that we were calling more and more on contractors to do the work of the government. so as we go through this, i would hope that we look at reallocating resources not just cutting resources. a contingency environment offers a perfect opportunity to show how the different departments of the government can work together. and as you will see in our --

one of our recommendations, we believe that those decisions, the allocation of resources, missions and responsibilities has gotten very much out of whack between the military and the civilian sides of our government. and we have put in place a recommendation that we hope will rebalance those efforts. thank you. >> thanks very much. i also want to reiterate our appreciation both for the military, the civilians who go out to the region. we were out there. this is not an easy place to work if you're a civilian and certainly if you're not wearing the uniform but also the contractors. as you heard, we didn't look at this in a partisan way at all because we just looked at it is what is best for the united states of america? and we're convinced that wasting 30 to $60 billion, and my personal view is that we're close to the 60, is that it's

not in the interest of america. if we keep saying we'll deal with that contingency when it arises we'll never fix the problems that clearly have arisen over the past decade and there are some problems that we don't even think about that are inherent in the way we started to do business. for example, we have policies which make an awful lot of sense to give local nationals priority in getting contracts. afghanistan first, iraq first. it makes a lot of sense unless you think we have limited oversight over these folks and when we have limited oversight, that means that money can get wasted. we have to do something about that. we also have to think about projects that we start but are not sure can be finished or sustained. our report talks about that as well. what is the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that will then fall into disuse?

and then we'll have a hobson's choice. either to let it fall into disuse and write it off as a waste or to keep spending our taxpayer money for god knows how long in order to keep the projects going. we need to avoid those sorts of things. $206 billion is a lot of money on contracting. but so is 60 billion in waste, of which a considerable amount, maybe as much as 18 billion, is pure fraud. we've got to do something about that. we need to do it for or troops, for our civilians, for our contractors and for the american people. >> i took a particular interest in what is now chapter 3 of our report, which is the over-40 particular significant waste in

iraq and afghanistan. in some respects we will produce the authoritative listing to date of big items of waste. i want to mention some specific things about this. you hear the figure of 30 billion to $60 billion and you might wonder, where do we get confidence in this figure? apart from basic derivation and if you start looking at the individual items, if you start looking at, for example, the lack of competition in the awarding of contracts in iraq for -- for task orders in iraq for 10 years to kbr, we calculated that $3.3 billion was lost on that alone. one other thing i want to say about the list, there's a tendency of some people -- i don't think that much either the press who cover us or the people who watch the commission hearings, who i talked to -- but the broader public to think that the problems with waste were primarily a problem of the iraq

war. that's when some of the names of companies like haliburton were household names and now they're not household names. maybe we can drawdown the troops in afghanistan and maybe the problem is behind us. and i say when you look at the wall of shame in chapter 3, you will see we start with some incidents in iraq but we have many current instances in afghanistan, power plants, even instances that have just come out this year as to logistic contractors, the waste goes on. that's why we've come up with these proposals that my colleagues are talking about. >> good morning. we were asked a couple of very specific questions in our legislation. and that is to determine the extent of reliance on contractors. our conclusion is that there is tremendous overreliance. we were asked to look and establish the amount of waste. our conclusion is that there was massive waste but this is so much more than a contracting story.

this is at the end of the day about the success and the ability of our defense, diplomacy and development efforts. at its essence, it's truly a national security story. we have been told time and time again by senior defense officials, military and civilian, and senior state department officials that we will not go to war -- we will not go to war without contractors. so just as important as procuring weapons systems, the training and readiness of our troops, the effectiveness and deemployability of our diplomats, we have to take, taking contractors to war seriously. it's a national security imperative and we cannot -- we cannot afford to fight the next war the way we fought the war in iraq and afghanistan. it's a national security issue at the highest importance and

demands reform. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to rehash some things that you've already heard, but -- which are certainly important to me. we've heard many times -- i think all of you recognize we're going to go to contingencies with contractors. you've heard it this morning over and over and over. and that is just not in a combat environment, but natural disaster humanitarian disaster. where we lack a capability is that the departments and the agency that we looked at -- and i would venture that it probably extends across the government, don't take contracting seriously as a core function. they may do okay buying stuff. but when it comes to contingency

contracting, particularly for services, they don't take it seriously, and they don't have the mechanisms in place like they do with procurement of systems. what our recommendations do, i think, to a great degree is they attempt to institutionalize, taken together, within the departments and usaid, institutionalize processes and procedures which will help eliminate some of the problems that we lay out in the report. what we need to do is change the culture. and that can't be done overnight. it won't be done overnight. it's been mentioned -- the budget dilemma that this country faces, and we recognize that, but as others this morning have said, not all of our

recommendations cost something. there are many of them that just require a change in processes and procedures and recommendations, which leads me to, i think, in my mind at least one of the most important aspects of our work, and that is the follow-through. all of you have seen many, many reports and, unfortunately, many end up in the dust bin. what our concern is that when these wars in afghanistan and iraq end, we no longer see the casualty lists. we go away at the end of this month. at some point sigar and sigir

will go away. what's going to happen so that we don't fall back in the same habits? that's why i think the last two recommendations that we've made in the strategic recommendations that we've made in the report, 14 and 15, are so important. despite the budget dilemma that we face, congress has got to look at these recommendations. and if need be, do a cost benefit analysis. what does it cost -- is it worth it to do recommendation x or recommendation y? and then they've got to demand from the departments and the agency regular reports on their progress. and they may not be able to do some of these things. but let's at least acknowledge that; otherwise, if we don't have that forcing function, if

we don't have oversight over those recommendations and over those departments, we will fall back into the same bad habits at the next contingency. >> thank you, grant. thank you. i would like to emphasize two points made by others today as you might imagine, and then to end with one final additional thought. first of all, as a number of us have said, we are not naive. we fully recognize that this is a time of severe budget constraints. there are some recommendations that if implemented would require additional resources. we would argue that notwithstanding that, and perhaps even because of that, it is urgent that these recommendations be implemented. it is clear as a number of us have said that we will continue given the limitations on the federal work force to rely on contractors. it is also clear that the nation will continue to engage in contingencies. the present libyan contingency in which we're engaged is not

one that could have been anticipated three years ago at the inception of the commission's work. there is ongoing activity presently in yemen and somalia, to name but two countries that may go into full fledge combat. that's the first the second we were conceived in a bipartisan fashion with the principal support of webb and mccaskill and collins. i would argue not just in a bipartisan fashion over the course of these three years but in a nonpartisan fashion. and now it is largely up to the congress working with this white house and subsequent ones to implement our recommendations and it is our hope that likewise our government will work in a bipartisan -- nonpartisan fashion. and finally, key to implementing those recommendations is not just government action but also the support of the news media in calling the congress' attention, the white house' attention and the public's attention to these issues on an ongoing basis. as commissioner henke

emphasized, these issues that we're talking about are not just issues of dollars and sense, as important it is in a time of budget constraint but it's really a question of national security. it's a question of the lives of american men and women. it's a question of the safety and security of the american people. thank you very much. >> i was just going to end -- chris -- i take great pride having worked with him. i take great pride in chris' alleging that i have an auditor's mentality. i do. that's my history. and as an auditor i would be remiss not to cite three numbers, they're page numbers for you in the report. 61, 111, and 162. if someone says what are three of the areas that are most

noteworthy, 61 is security. and it relates to both contracting with organizations like host nation trucking and ending up subsidizing the taliban or in protecting american troops. 111 is about sustainability which was mentioned and the $30 billion that's going to be spent from 2014 to 2017 just to afford to buy food, guns, bullets, equipment, ammunition and the like for the afghan national security force and 162 is about the auditor opportunity to have immediate cost-savings of 1.1 to $2.1 billion through funding them in the austere environment that commissioner ervin brought out. and i hope those are the three key departments, the defense, state and aid has the will and

the leadership to bring home and to address these recommendations. >> i would just ask you to conduct the -- excuse me. mike has asked me to conduct the questioning part and if you do have questions, first, thank you for your patience. and if you do have questions, the commissioners are happy to respond to them. do we have anyone? yes, sir. >> everyone's talked about the importance of them and congress taking them seriously, but can you sort of describe what happens if no action's taken -- >> the question is what happens if these recommendations are not implemented. who wants to start? . what happens is what happened before. we didn't anticipate libya or afghanistan or iraq. we fight contingencies that we

never expect and then the size of them isn't just the actual fighting. it's the reconstruction. for example, they're now talking about reconstructing libya. well, who's going to do a lot of that work? contractors. who's going to overseas the contractors? a very small acquisition work force and a very small federal oversight work force. so what you're doing is asking for more of the same, more waste, more fraud, more abuse. can we estimate how big it will be? no. but frankly every dollar in this budget constrained environment that goes to waste is a dollar that should be going somewhere els else. >> i'm just going to make another point on that over the life of the commission we have actually seen improvements more attention to these issues, more people being devoted to managing contractors and overseeing contracts but what we're starting to see right now are those gains are at risk, if not being lost. so a number of the commitments

that the leaders have made to strengthen their acquisition functions we are already seeing fall off. so i think that would be another point that would concern us greatly. >> so, again, to take the dark side, if these recommendations are not implemented, there ought to be a hall of shame mounted or developed by you folks out there who in the media -- who can address that and there ought to be accountability in that hall because as has been outlined, there's an opportunity at hand, and that ought to be addressed. >> the first time yesterday you talked about the emphasis of compared to some of the other types of cuts and things they have to make this is still comparative small when it -- [inaudible] >> would you feel it's a failure of the super-committee if they didn't implement some of the things -- >> so the question was, would it be fair of the super-committee if they didn't implement some of

our recommendations in spite of the fact that our numbers don't come close to the trillion that they got to reach and the answer would be, it would be a failure. >> the military commanders is that they lack sufficient control over contractors within their area of operations and responsibility. can they conform to the standards of discipline or policies set out and some have gone so far to recommend that the commander's j.a.g. should be given that policy to ensure that policy is followed. how do you feel with these recommendations? what would you recommend if this is a problem of the military commanders -- >> your question is basically saying the commanders in the field have some significant concern that they don't have the kind of oversight over contractors they feel they may need. and even in some cases maybe

having them do what they should be doing. i wonder if grant might want to take this one first or bob, someone in the military directly. >> i have heard in our travels similar complaints. but in my mind, most of those lead to the fact that a unit did not have the appropriate -- or an adequate number of contract oversight representatives which are to be provided from that unit itself. so we saw units getting ready to deploy to iraq and afghanistan early on in the process that had no idea how many contractors they would fall in on when they arrived in-country. and so they were ill-prepared to oversee those contractors in

many case. i must say that's getting at least in my experience, that is getting much better. and units now are deploying with -- in some cases a set number of cors, contract office representatives. >> there needs to be better integration by the pentagon and that you would not see just a passing comment in the qdr, quadrennial review, about it. the state department has done more in their qddr about contractors than dod and yet dod has a bulk of the contractors. yet, this is a sort ofable problem and, frankly, we didn't want to inject ourselves telling

the military what to do but it's self-evident what they need to do. >> is there any way iraq and afghanistan -- how they're different or how they're -- like are the issues different in terms of the waste, fraud and abuse? >> i think all of us could jump in on that one. you want to start first, charles? >> the problems of abuse in iraq were sort of very crude because the war -- the need for contractors started very suddenly in 2003 unexpectedly. and so large numbers of contracts were given out that were not definitized and were not detailed and as a result large amounts could be waste under them. in contrast, afghanistan for our purposes, the large numbers and contracting dollars came after the two surges in 2009 and 2010. and by this point some of the lessons from iraq had been

learned and the waste was not done in the same crude way but there was still a great deal in terms of, say, reconstruction projects which had been a big failure in afghanistan because the area is not prepared. or money that has gone -- siphoned off to the insurgency through afghan security subcontractors. so what we found there was plenty of problems in afghanistan even if they were sort of further down or different than the iraq ones. >> i can also take a crack at that. what we've seen is some of the good lessons learned in iraq have not migrated to afghanistan quickly or in some cases at all. for example, two examples, in iraq, they evolve into contract a contractor operation cell to have visibility into where contractors were and what they were doing. in afghanistan, they decided not to do that for reasons that, frankly, elude us. second issue, in iraq, defense

and state, entered into a memorandum of agreement in how they're going to run private security contractors in the country with a good and reasonable step. they didn't decide to do that in afghanistan again, for reasons that are not apparent to us and we recommend that they do that. so the lessons -- the hard lessons that were learned in iraq have not migrated as quickly or as well as they could, we believe, to afghanistan, to solve problems and get ahead of it. >> bob clark? >> i would just add one additional point just to underscore what commissioner henke said. people tend to forget that the afghan war predated the iraq war and notwithstanding that, after all the lessons ought to have been learned from iraq in many cases as was just elaborated they were not applied in afghanistan. one further example that i would cite is that of sigar the special inspector general for the afghan reason. that inspector general was even

slower to respond to sigir it's improving its performance but all of this underscores the recommendations in particular and having the permanent inspector general so that the next time america goes to war, or we engage in some major activity, there is a standing cadre of auditors and investigators and inspectors who are trained, who have adequate resources that can be scaled up or scaled down as needs dictate to ensure that the lessons learned in iraq and now lessons learned in afghanistan are applied the next time there's a disaster or a contingency. >> i would add one more thing and that is i think that the commissioners would agree that however bad sustainability is, in other words, projects, activities in either country that cannot be sustained and, therefore, will end up be a very wasteful expenditure are magnified in afghanistan.

afghanistan for obvious reasons doesn't have the resources to carry on in many cases. >> do you think congress has demonstrated an inability to work effectively -- for example, the raising of the u.s. debt limit and you raised these are urgent recommendations that congress needs to act on. what confidence do you have that there will be follow-through? >> let me take that on since i served here. i admire the men and women who serve here. and i always went back home and said, i've met some of the finest people. when you see the collective outcome, you're not impressed and then there are a few that can make everyone look bad. but i think both sides of the aisle know that we have a gigantic problem. we've postponed dealing with our spending issues for now decades. and this is the year -- this is the decade of decisions. decisions can't be put off so i

would like to think that they will be eager to implement our proposals because in the end, you're going to save far more than you have to spend far more so that would be my answer to your question. yes, sir. >> is it going to cost money to save money. is there any recommendation in the infrastructure in the contracting process that would include a surcharge to pay for what it would take for the waste -- >> the short answer is no. there are some agencies, defense contract management agency, that operates on a reimbursable basis. therefore, if they can advocate and convince organizations that they can provide better contract administration, they're refunded. there are other organizations, defense contracting audit agencies that is funded as a line item and that's why we make the report in those reports that

those agencies have to be addressed but the short answer is no. is it valid to continually look at methods to finance oversight organizations so that we can assure that when a contingency occurs they can hit the ground, yes. >> tell us how the waste numbers were computed. can you give us a little insight on that. >> we'll have dov start and then -- >> can you repeat the question. >> the question is how do we come up with the numbers that we came up with. >> there's a general sense out there when you speak to people from sigar the inspector general for iraq or sigir as well as a lot of academic studies that waste is somewhere north of 10%. we have our staff and we met with people in the field -- met

with experts, and we got a lot of information, frankly, that people did not want to say officially but gave to us. and so we came up with what's called a para metric estimate, which is to say you have $206 billion that's spent. >> if you take 10 to 20% of that you're just north of $40 billion. then you look at the fraud side. and the fraud side is a little interesting because we came up with an estimate between 5 and 9%. the association of certified fraud examiners said 7% of all commercial contracts are lost through fraud. and we were at 5 to 9%. so we think we're pretty much spot on and that's how we came up with our estimate. it is an original commission estimate. we stand by it. we're very confident in it and as i said earlier, i personally believe that the number is much, much closer to 60 billion than to 31 billion for all the

reasons you've just heard from everyone else. >> i might add, we're participating in two countries that have a different view of waste and fraud. what we would call fraud, they would call, you know, the tax on doing business. yes, that's what we do. >> i would like to add one other thing and a lot of the page in front of me but look for it. one of the things, for example, that is hard to calculate is the amount of money that is being spent to buy off insurgents. we actually have a photocopy of a document that chris and i were handed when we were in afghanistan. it's a bill from -- i think it's called the islamic of east afghanistan or something like that. it has a telephone number and it says, this is to a contractor, you want to operate safely, here's the number to call. we didn't put the number in by the way because we figured maybe somebody in this country who has

that number and all of a sudden is going to get a lot of calls. the point is, you're getting all kinds of money siphoned off. that's just impossible to measure. the estimates are 10%. who knows? >> on this page right here on chapter 3. by the way, the chapter that charles did a lot of work on, we had to kind of tone him town because it maybe would have added another 30 pages to our document. so we are just took some of the key ones. let me go to this side, yes. >> dr. zakheim, you have an interesting perspective because you were there at the run-up of the war, iraq war, as comptroller. now you're here on this side criticizing a lot of that war and you got a book out called "how the bush administration mismanaged reconstruction in afghanistan." looking back, how much was the rush to war and the poor planning, the documented poor planning for phase 4 -- how much of that set the stage for the 30 to $60 billion you're estimating today?

>> the question isn't accurate. we are not criticizing the war. and i don't want anyone to think that we are. no. i just need to clarify that. we are criticizing bad contracting in the war. >> i don't know that i should really answer that, tony, but you did advertise my book so i'll repeat the question. it's called "a vulcan's tale how the bush administration mismanaged afghanistan." look, we are a bipartisan and contributors to this matter were also bipartisan. you have to look back into the '90s and see how the acquisition work force was cut back. so the people who were doing the oversight -- there just weren't as many of them. then you get into the afghan war where you don't have in the first few years anything like the money that was spent in the last few years. i'll give you an example. we spent in the region of a billion or two in the first few years. in fact, i believe had we spent

more then, we would be in even better shape now, it doesn't matter. in iraq we immediately spent huge amounts of money and as i think mike thibault pointed out, the contracts that were signed were signed so hurriedly that they didn't specify details and for that reason, you had huge amounts of spending and the contractors themselves did not have the acquisition systems to manage that amount of expenditure. so you had a problem on top of a problem. you had a shortage of people doing the oversight because they'd been cut out in the '90s. then you have this very, very rapid acquisition program. contractors weren't ready for it. stuff had to be done. and then when it started to be challenged and, oh, by the way it was challenged in my office under the direction of in part by mike thibault, we challenged

those contracts and it took a while for it to get resolved but as it was getting resolved, money was getting spent. who's to blame everybody is to blame. let's not look at the past and point fingers, let's learn lessons and do something about it regardless of who's making the decisions in the white house, in the pentagon and the state department or in the congress. >> yes, sir. >> i probably overstated. let me make sure since clarity is important. let me be really clear. first off, we're just one small part of their mammoth task. but if they don't take a good look at it, it would be a failing, not a failure of the committee. [inaudible] >> that's a whole issue that mike could speak of just on the

backlog of the dcaa just as an example. >> i have a couple of points. it's more than defense, it's state and usaid. there's opportunities for significant cost reduction i think the point that we make is that the committee can look at that and we've seen some indication that they're very keen on it. i'll give the one example that i referenced on page 162. the defense contract audit agency has put in a question for 100 auditors. that's not a lot of cost in the billions of dollars we're working. for the next four years so they can reduce a backlog that goes back to 2005/2006/2007 and then forward. if you're trying to be fair to contractors, and we are, try to be a contractor that's got to support a claim and they submitted six, seven years of claims and has to support it. that's the challenge of the reduced backlog.

where the opportunity is they have a backlog outlined presently of 588 million that's going to go up to a trillion dollars. those are unaudited costs if you used the returns in the audit right in the immediate backlog of $588 million, we estimate 1.1 to 2.1 billions of dollars will be recovered, that's subject to getting funding for the auditors that they've requested. you know, the funding process is going on right now. you can authorize the 100 which dod did. you don't fund them and they don't hire them or if you don't fund them late in the year they are already behind. those kinds of things are occurring. if you look at the trillions in quantity fire it can run close to a billion dollars half of which is immediate savings and half of which are -- 40% of which will be cost avoidance opportunity, you know, those are the kinds of immediate decision s

that i think the committee should be interested in this. >> we'll take a few more questions. yes, ma'am. anyway [inaudible] >> who wants to take that question is. okay, dov. >> the question was if i heard you well, how involved with the government in afghanistan and iraq in the corruption side of things or in the fixing of the corruption, which one were you -- i can answer both. clearly, there's a lot of corruption in both countries. to point to any individual in the governments is extremely difficult. and, frankly, sometimes people who are pointed to end up being killed so we want to be very careful about whom we accuse. in terms of the solutions, again, there are people in both

countries who are working very hard for those solutions because they realize because if they want to have continued american involvement in the reconstruction of their countries, given the debt crisis we face, the american public might say, enough, call us. and if that's the case, they will lose out. so i believe that there are many, many officials in afghanistan and in iraq who would be exceedingly sympathetically to what we've written. >> and if i can mention a specific illustration that's somewhat known and that's the kabul bank the failure of the $900 million bank in afghanistan. i think it illustrates the way our commission dealt with things. was that the problem of the government in afghanistan, of course, it had high officials in that government who were on the board of the bank and who were receiving loans that were not backed. and i'm not going to go on and

on, but, of course, it was a government problem in afghanistan. on the other hand, our particular interest was the contracting involved. there was an american contractor deloitte who -- the agency for international development hired to be a consultant to the central bank of afghanistan. and to look at things like the kabul bank which is 40% of the banking system in afghanistan. and deloitte -- even though it was privy to many indications of fraud, many indications that this was a house of cards, a ponzi scheme, did not tell the u.s. government what it knew. u.s. government, as our report mentions, found out about the problems not from the contractor it paid but from the "washington post." so u.s. government contractors have their aspect and the afghan government has its own. >> just one more point in

regards to this, we met with officials in afghanistan that were -- i can't give you the office 'cause i don't want to endanger their lives, but basically provided tremendous information in their official capacity about fraud in the afghan government. this is afghan officials. and they submitted it. they did their job, but they were very fearful that it would become public. in other words, they disclosed the corruption within the government, but they knew it would be kept quiet and if it wasn't kept quiet, then they feared for their lives which is a real disincentive to pointing out fraud in your own government. and it was extensive and it was in large amounts of money and it was major government officials that was involved. we're going to take just two questions. you and you and we'll be done. yes, sir. >> chairman levin talked about

getting some of these recommendations involved when they conference over the defense authorization bill in the next few months. which of the recommendations will be recommended by the agencies without legislation. >> it's a good list that we'll provide you. and secondly, we've been in continual contact with staff. our big achievement yesterday was to issue this report without the press getting it first. and the staff reading about it. and we were determined that none of you would get this report and that staff got it first and we succeeded. so we're just trying to build a little credibility with the staff. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> waste and fraud so afghanistan is not the first to go ham. vietnam, contractors have been involved for a long time. what makes these two wars and the level of waste and fraud -- what makes it so much different? >> it would be easy to prevent if we put the resources to prevent it.

it would be easy to prevent. not all of it. but the bulk of it. i'm going to just have mike close up and then we'll all be here for any individual questions. >> part of an answer to that is the run-up was so quick in both wars, the immediate run-up of troops that the cost, you know -- contractors were trying to be very supportive. we were literally throwing contractor support out of necessity. and what happens is a company tries to be responsive and sometimes their business systems lag. i think in -- the only closing comment i want to make is -- a commission like ours -- you know, we're not going to put the "good housekeeping" seal of approval. that wasn't our job and that wasn't our mandate to say here's eight companies that have done a pretty good jobs and here's eight organizations that have done a pretty good job. our history -- my history is when you put that housekeeping sale of approval, something happens the next day and someone said well, why did you do that?

someone out in this audience. but with that said, we have seen numerous examples. and one i want to cite the defense contract management agency in 2008 in afghanistan, we would say, who are the oversight officials for this tremendous buildup and run-up of contractor work and there really weren't any. they couldn't give a list. and the like. within a year they had that list. they had the assignments. within two years, 2010, they had training mounted and it was clear in the military you had to provide these people. it was clear within the governmental oversite organizations you had the test to evaluate it. you know could a person logically say you should have had that at the outset? well, i would say part of our commission is in business to take these lessons learned and it's the same infrastructure that they're laying out that ought to be able to take that tremendous buildup that is the nature of contingencies and more effectively deal with it and not waste so much money. last of all, i just have to

thank everyone that's here because it was a collective effort. >> thank you all very, very much. i appreciate it. .. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the commission on wartime contracting established in 2008 during the 110th congress wrapping up today, and coming to close at the end of september next month issuing their final report today. we have a link to a summary of the report available on our website. it's c-span.org. you will get a chance to talk to two members of the commission tomorrow morning on "washington journal." the two co-chairs of the commission will join us to talk about the report. that will be live starting at 7:45 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. >> and a live picture from the

white house rose garden. president obama is expected in just a moment. he's expected to make a statement about jobs and the nations infrastructure and reauthorization of the faa. that reauthorization expires in september. is expected to be joined by transportation secretary ray lahood, richard trumka was the president of the afl-cio, and the chief operating officer of the chamber of commerce, david chavern. a number of others. live coverage in just a couple of minutes when the president will right here in the white house rose garden on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again we are live at the white house rose garden a waiting president obama. he's expected to talk about the importance of extending the surface transportation projects bill. the president called on congress to pass a clean extension of the bill which expires at the end of september, as well as a federal aviation administration reauthorization which expires in mid-september. the present is expected to be joined by secretary of transportation ray lahood,

richard trumka and chamber of commerce coo david chavern and a number of transportation industry workers. live coverage from the rose garden here in the nation's capital. this morning while we wait for the president we set up a poll today on our facebook page asking you about spending habits and whether you plan to spend more, less or about the same in six months. we heard from about 300 of you this morning with about 35 in saying that you planned to spend more. 203 are saying that you will likely spend less, and 69 of you planning to spend about the same. over the next six months. we will keep the pool open all day. you can take part and off your comments. addresses at facebook.com c-span with no dash. we watch the poll throughout the day. keep you updated with results.

>> and again we're back at the white house rose garden away president obama talking about the infrastructure and reauthorization of the faa. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> waiting for the president in the rose garden. he is expected to make a statement about the surface transportation projects bill. also reauthorization of the

federal aviation administration reauthorization. that reauthorization expires in mid-september. while we wait for the president, actually the president we expect in just a second. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> good morning, everybody. please have a seat. i want to say a few words about an issue that affects thousands of american workers, as well as millions of americans who drive on our nation's roads and every single day. at the end of september, if

congress doesn't act, transportation bill will expire. this bill provides funding for highway construction, rich repair, mass transit systems and other essential projects that keep our people and our commerce moving quickly and safely. and four construction workers and their families across the country it represents the difference between making ends meet or not making ends meet. if we allow transportation bill to expire, over 4000 workers will be immediately furloughed without pay. if it's delayed for just 10 days, it will lose nearly $1 billion in highway funds. that's money we can never get back. and if it is delayed even longer, almost 1 million workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next year. that include some of the folks behind me today. we've got adam and chris begley

your with the federal highway administration your we've got hector and austin anderson the work for the fort myers construction company. if we don't extend this bill by the end of september, all of them will be out of a job. just because of politics in washington. and that's just not acceptable. that's inexcusable. it's inexcusable to put more jobs at risk in an industry that has already been one of the hardest hit over the last decade. it's inexcusable to cut off necessary investment at a time when some in of our highways are choked with congestion, when so many of our bridges are in need of repair, when so many commuters depend on reliable public transit, and when travel and shipping delays cost businesses billions of dollars every single year. now, if this story sounds familiar, that's because we've

heard it before, just a few weeks ago congress refuse to act on another bill. typically a routine bill that would have ended up pulling thousands of aviation workers off the job and delay necessary airport improvement projects across the country. and when congress by the got their act together a only funded the faa until september 16. that's why when they come back next month, not only do they need to pass the transportation bill but they've also got to pass a clean extension of that faa bill. for longer this time. and addressed back pay for the workers who were laid off during the last shut down. at a time when a lot of people in washington are talking about creating jobs, it's time to stop the political gamesmanship that can actually cost of as hundreds of thousands of jobs. they should not be a democratic issue or a republican issue. is transportation bill has been

renewed seven times in the last two years alone. that's why my secretary of transportation, ray lahood, a republican, is with me today, along with david chavern, from the chamber of commerce. and richard trumka of afl-cio. to organizations who don't always see eye to eye on things, because they agree on how important it is for our economy, that congress act now. so i'm calling on congress as soon as they come back to pass a clean extension of the surface transportation bill, along with a clean extension of the faa bill, to give workers and communities across america the confidence that final construction projects will not come to a halt. after that's done, i'm also proposing that we reform the way transportation money is invested, eliminate waste, give states more control over the projects that are right for them, to make sure that we're getting better results for the money that we spend. we need to stop funding projects

based on whose districts bear in and start funding them based on how much good they will be doing for the american people. no more bridges to nowhere. no more projects that are simply funded because of somebody pulling strings. we need to do this all in a way that gets the private sector more involved. that's how we will put construction workers back to work right now, doing the work that america needs done. not just to boost our economy this year, but for the next 20 years. finally, in keeping with recommendation from my jobs council, today i am directing certain federal agencies to identify high priority infrastructure projects that could put people back to work. these projects, these are projects that are already funded and with some focused attention we could expedite the decisions and reviews necessary to get construction underway more quickly, while still protecting safety, public health and

environment. tomorrow, in dallas, my jobs council will meet with local jobs, local business owners and other folks about what we've done so far to rebuild our infrastructure and what we can do to make sure that america is moving even faster in getting people back to work. that's what we'll need to do in the short-term. key people on the job, keep vital project moving forward, fund projects that are already underway is a smarter way. of course, if we are on us, we also know that when it comes to our nation's infrastructure, our roads, our railways, mass transport, airports, we should just playing catch-up, we should be leading the world. 10 years ago our nation's infrastructure was ranked sixth locally. today it is 23rd. we invest half as much in our infrastructure as we did 50 years ago. with more than one and a half of the number of people. everybody can see the

consequences. that's unacceptable for a nation that's always dreamed big and built a big. from transcontinental railroads to the interstate highway system. and it's unacceptable when countries like china are building high-speed rail networks, new airport, while more than a million construction workers can be doing the same thing are unemployed right here in america. so when congress is back next week, in addition to passing these clean extensions to prevent any calls on existing work, we're going to have to have a serious conversation in this country about making real lasting investment in our infrastructure from better ports to smarter electric grid, from high-speed internet to high-speed rail. and at a time when interest rates are low and workers are unemployed, the best time to make those investments is right now. not once another levy fails for another bridge falls. right now is when we need to be

making these decisions. now is the time for congress to extend the transportation bill, keep our workers on the job. now is the time to put our country before party, and to give certainty to the people who are just trying to get by. there is work to be done. there are workers ready to do it. and that's what i expect congress to act immediately. and to all the folks who are here on the stage, thank you for the outstanding work you're doing to help maintain our nation's infrastructure. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> president obama focusing on

the administrations jobs agenda ahead of congress is returned next week urging members to get right to work on passing extensions of the service transportation projects bill, the federal aviation administration bill. will have live coverage of the senate when they return next tuesday here on c-span2. and, of course, the house on c-span next wednesday. and some life booktv programming to tell you about. join us later today for the author of the heart in the fist.

>> he's a partisan guy, unites people. all of the problems of the era you can get from the sky. and why we couldn't elect him is the same reason we eventually went to war. they couldn't be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. and so i don't really think that there was any way that adlai@ú stevenson could have one. >> think of smith in 1928 year but paved the way for franklin roosevelt. there are 14 people industries,

many of whom i guarantee viewers may never have heard of, and all of whom i can pretty much guarantee they will find interesting, fascinating, and certainly surprising. >> history professor jean baker, real clear politics editor carl cannon and presidential historian richard norton smith talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost, friday at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific. it's a preview for "the contenders," a 14 week series on c-span beginning friday september 9. >> machiavellian has become an adjective. i gather many people in this town who would like to be described as machiavellian no matter, i feel many of them, at the dark of night, have it next to the bedside and not too many

people would call themselves machiavellian. >> his name is synonymous with cynical scheming and the selfish pursuit of power. sunday night author miles unger argues that machiavelli's degrees may have been a response to the corruption around him at 8 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> congressman jared polis of colorado said yesterday that the united states is not winning the war on drugs and prohibition of marijuana has caused more harm than good. he took part in a panel discussion with former drug enforcement officers and drug reform activists who debate the legalization of marijuana and the war on drugs. it's about an hour 45 minutes. >> i'm told the good camera shot is this microphone, so when we get come and answer is, when we get to that part of the program, if summit has a question, if you're, come over here. but if you want a good camera

shot, it's okay. thank you all for being here. our first paper tonight is congressman jared polis. congressman polis is a democrat representing colorado's second congressional district which includes the vail area. is quickly establishing itself as one of the most outspoken federal critics of marijuana prohibition. congressman polis told the crowd during his keynote address at normal which is a nonprofit operations at the fourth annual conference in denver in the spring that he would file marijuana legalization bill, he's also, so help me welcome congressman polis, please. [applause] >> well, here we are. 40 years into the drug war that president nixon declared, how many of you think that the drug war is working, that we're winning the drug were? so we've got about three people, for people out of your. how many think we are losing the drug war? vast majority. objective evidence, general

consensus, every objective study looks at it. we are not winning the drug war. marijuana use, use of other illicit substances is out. we need a different strategy. it's time for a different strategy. i think americans in general, 90%, 95% across the board agreed that the war on drugs is a massive public policy failure. every company to objective government study has come to the conclusion. every study regarding the use of marijuana with the past four decades recommended that adults should not be criminalized for using marijuana. is marijuana harmful? absolutely. all drugs are potentially harmful whether they are drugs that are used predominantly creation we like alcohol, marijuana or nicotine, or whether there are drugs that are used for painkilling or under prescription. like amphetamines, or like percocet or other drugs are all harmful. but by any reasonable health standard marijuana on that continuum is much more

comparable to alcohol and smoking. in fact, compared to nicotine it's less addictive. compared to alcohol it's less toxic. and unlike alcohol marijuana doesn't make users aggressive and violent and less likely to commit crimes like barroom fights et cetera than under the includes a vocal. all of these things are bad things. we don't want people abusing alcohol. we don't people of using cigarettes. we don't want people abusing marijuana. but in that continuum from the federal approach, the regulatory structures look a lot more similar for marijuana to alcohol than it does to a drug like heroin which has many different attributes. marijuana prohibition has caused far more harm than good. when you look at any federal law, you've got to look at its intended impact, didn't work and then he unattended consequences, negative impact as well. intended impact, does banning marijuana work? no. it's widely available. one of the negative impacts of that, it's strange -- contribute

funding to the cartels, that do violence on the southern border. made it difficult to keep marijuana from children and destroy the lives of families and other law-abiding citizens and fueled a criminal cartels to cause the vicious cycle of violence. prohibition doesn't stop people from using marijuana. recent article said something like 30% of coloradans had used marijuana in the last year. but what it does do is it drains the resources that are better spent fighting crime and drives them into the underground economy. having a federal prohibition on marijuana also mix of which were difficult to keep it out of the hands of children. does the corner drug dealer care? no. doesn't regulate industry education system care just as they do for alcohol, make sure the card people? absolutely they care. they will target every to make sure young people to have access to illegal marijuana until they

reach age of majority. instead keeping our streets safe from crime, police waste of time going after nonviolent drug users. every year more arrests are made from marijuana possession that for all violent crimes combined. marijuana arrests in the u.s. were 850,000 last year. 89% of those were for possession. simply possession. 850,000 arrests. imagined the cost to our court system, tour criminal justice system, to the families that that impacts. imagine, as you know with a failed policy of prohibition of alcohol in this country that led to the rise of organized crime. here's a more sensible approach to marijuana. treelike other legal drugs, and the federal prohibition policy directory structure similar to that for alcohol or tobacco, regular access to make sure people don't drive under the influence and tax it. now, legalizing marijuana at the federal level doesn't make it

legal what is currently illegal. it's illegal in most states. even in a state like colorado which is legal marijuana, many counties and cities including this county have said they don't want in their borders. that's fine. the real issue here is what is the federal next action. there's not one. there's no federal nexus to why they should be a national prohibition that we should allow states and local government to decide the course of how that's directly for sale or use of marijuana within the boundaries. a national registry structure will help keep marijuana out of the hands of mind, keep our streets safer and generate revenues to reduce the deficit. i might add, some on the other side say well, when it's legal may be useful will go up, and here's the best answer to that is we should earmark some of those revenues that come in from the taxes to help educate the public about the dangers of drug abuse and also to provide quality treatment for anybody who needs it or who's in a

vicious cycle of addiction. particularly with the continue but even if they have a psychological reliance or a reliance on alcohol or nicotine or marijuana, they should be able to have the treatment services as well. some of these arguments here, and i was kind of going through our attorney general slideshow that he has, almost a joke. like it talks about addiction for marijuana, right? scientist will say marijuana is not chemically addicted. it's not as addictive as nicotine, not as addictive as our goal. symptoms of withdrawal? well, nervousness. you probably get, maybe get nervous if you withdraw for marijuana, i do know. that's nothing appeared to withdrawal symptoms from alcohol addiction or even a nicotine addiction, not to mention the drugs that are rightfully illegal like heroin to like heroin but if you've ever seen anybody who has to do with heroin withdrawal, you're talking about a major withdrawal condition as well. another slight is why marijuana potency is increased.

yes, it has and has because of the lack of any oversight or regulatory structure. we regulate the nicotine levels in cigarettes. that's a good thing. the tobacco companies were trying to spike it. do you know what? does that happen to marijuana as part of the underground economy? absolutely. how can we address that? the right regular structure to ensure that people on a spiky marijuana with additional potency as well. look, marijuana of all, tobacco, these are not good things for people to use. i've never smoked marijuana in my life. i have a class of uncle a month. i've only been drunk probably twice in my life. these are bad things. we need the resources to educate the public about this. but can occasionally use of alcohol, occasional smoking, or occasional marijuana use be incorporated into an overall healthy lifestyle? it's actually possible to do that. many americans do. many americans do. and i'm not going to embarrass people by asking how many people here had used marijuana, but i

bet many have. and for those of you who have, do you belong in jail for that? for those who haven't, and i haven't, i have friends who have and i have friends that have successful professional careers that still use it from time to time. and do they belong in jail? absolutely not. apps will not. what a ridiculous concept. the list of people in your mind. if you choose a do i belong in jail? if your friends or associates that do, do they belong in jail? for them to be in jail? and why should this be in the underground illegal distribution system instead of in the regular tax part of our economy to generate real honest jobs for people to remove the criminal element, country by taxes back to society, create quality jobs, build real estate with rent and be part of the overall economic recovery. this is an important sector in our economy. and again i'd like to some of the revenues to advertise about the dangers of narcotic

substances, and i'd also like to some of the revenues to reduce the deficit. another argued is that, of course, marijuana has some attributes that are particularly dangers with regards to country bidding to psychosis. certainly anybody who is prone to that, their families who are diagnosed with schizophrenia should actually not use marijuana for any purpose but as long as there's a lack of regulation around it, we lack the ability to educate to ensure that people with mild schizophrenia don't use marijuana. talk about what contributes to schizophrenic and how about perfectly legal and prescription of edible amphetamines? like ritalin and others. that trigger schizophrenia and an increase of schizophrenia rates in this country and have contributed far more to schizophrenia than any link to marijuana use. i generally, i don't opine about whether particular commuters should have legalized marijuana or not. it's entirely up to the community. we have dried counties in texas.

and likewise, many counties can and will prevent the sale of marijuana. i have seen any counties prevent cigarettes but they're welcome to do that if they want. some cities including mine have prevented indoor smoking in their office buildings. and that's a reasonable step as well. but there's no federal nexus for action. this is not a federal issue. the tenth amendment our constitution reserves to the states the right to regulate these issues. in fact, is almost a reverse federal nexus. we are contributing to international difficulties, particularly at our southern border were about 50% of the money that funds the criminal cartels comes from you want to smuggling operations again if you would legally, regulate in this country, not only would it create jobs here and deal a blow to the cartel, will they still exist? they will still work in heroin and cocaine. but half of their money, half of the crime, overnight will disappear in our southern border and be much more containable by

the police resources which will also be able to buffer by the increased focus on violent crime, and the increased resources that come in. through regulating and taxing marijuana. so i'm going to continue to support whatever direction colorado wants to go, on legalizing marijuana. i think the federal government should get out of that business, whether a state once of medical marijuana, partially go marijuana, recreational prescription, what ever they want to do, they should be allowed to do that. as the federal government should get out of the business of second-guessing state and local authorities with regard to the very critical public health issue of how best to regulate the substances, including alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker is congress 37th attorney general, john suthers. even recognized by the colorado

drug investigators association for his dedication to enforcing drug trafficking laws and educating about the effects of illicit drug use. mr. suthers has also made efforts to improve colorado's narcotics laws and related public policy issues, including medical marijuana. mr. suthers is a lifetime colorado resident who has served in the u.s. attorney general for the district of colorado, the district attorney for the fourth judicial district, and the director of colorado, the colorado department. please join in welcoming attorney general suthers. [applause] >> thank you very much. thanks to the vail symposium for the invitation to join this evening. unlike some of my comrades and law enforcement, i believe the debate about legalization of drugs is a very healthy one. in 2012, it appears colorado will once again be voting on the legalization of marijuana. and my hope is that voters will be as well-informed as possible

about the various issues involved. hopefully this evening i can bring some perspectives on the legalization of marijuana, in the so-called war on drugs, that you may not hear from other speakers on this panel and which are certainly will not hear in all the ads that marijuana industry and its proponents will run in the lead up to the 2012 election. i've been a lawyer for 33 years, and over that time i've been on literally dozens of panels discussing drug laws and drug reforms. and that's led me to some very interesting observations. almost without exception the people on the panels advocating legalization of drugs has either been academics, paid it is a public policy institutes, editorialists are law enforcement officers or politicians in ski resorts in areas of great affluence. i've never had a recovered drug addict, a drug treatment counselor, a law enforcement

officers who patrol drug infested neighborhoods, or a citizen who lived in one advocate for legalization. that may be a coincidence but i don't think so. i personally believe your experiences in life have a lot to do with your views on this subject. i've also noticed over the last 20 years that the proponents of drug legalization, including doctor nadelman, as advocated by congressman polis, insist on defining the term war on drugs for their own purposes. the term relates only to prohibitionists and supply reduction strategy. they don't want to include drug prevention and drug treatment strategies include the now widespread use of drug courts to promote drug treatment as part of the war on drugs. i think that's a mistake. i would never call our supply reduction strategies a complete success. i've been witness over the last three years to successes in demand reduction strategies and law enforcement played a key role. finally, i've observed that a lot of people who want to raise

the white flag of surrender to drug legalization, essentially played the country's drug problem couldn't be any worse. folks, they are flat wrong. in fact, the problem could be and has been much worse. the annual national survey of drug use and health conducted by the department of health and human services shows that the percentage of americans using illicit drugs rose steadily through the '60s and '70s, and tell it reached a peak in 1979, a 14.1%. that means 14.1% of americans reported use of illicit drugs in the last 30 days. then came the 1980s with consummate law enforcement efforts, combined with concentrated drug prevention campaigns. remember nancy reagan's just say no campaign? everybody laughed. guess what? by 1992 when bill clinton was elected president, illicit drug use had been cut by over 50%, the 5.8% of the population. the results were even more dramatic for marijuana.

youth marijuana use peak at 14.2% in 1979, and declined to 3.4% in 1992. it was back up to 18.3% by 1998. i'm wondering if we have had similar success reducing the out of wedlock birth rate or the illiteracy rate in our country, if we would have called our efforts a failure. the fact is that even today our drug use rates in america are lower than they were 30 years ago. let me turn specifically to the issue of marijuana legalization and let me explain what i personally believe some legal deterrent is an important part of the demand reduction strategy. but i should begin by repeating something that i said frequently over the last year, and still stand by. i personally, i don't speak for anybody else but myself, i personally would prefer legalization of marijuana to the medical marijuana regimen we currently have in colorado.

i believe the retail dispensary model in colorado where my marijuana is grown in large grow operations and sold in retail dispensaries to people who allegedly have a debilitating medical condition has become a complete joke. is nothing more than state sanctioned fraud on the part of thousands of patients and a few dozen doctors. only the terribly naïve could believe otherwise. ladies and gentlemen, there are now 128,000 medical marijuana patients in colorado. not surprisingly, the demographic profile of those patients is the same as the recreational drug use profiled in colorado. the average age is slightly below 40, 83% of the patients are male. that's not the demographic of people with debilitating medical conditions who would be in their late '60s as an average, and about 54% male and 46% female. at least with legalization young people would not have to lie to doctors and to the government to pursue recreational drug use,

and doctors could stop practicing substandard medicine. having said that, i will not be voting for legalization of marijuana when it appears on the 2012 ballot in our state. and here's why. i believe the adverse consequences of legalization of marijuana will far outweigh the benefits in terms of social costs, and that stems largest for my concerns about the impact of legalization of the drug on adolescence. we know from decades of experience that adolescent use of marijuana is a function of two things. accessibility and acceptability. marijuana has always been highly accessible to our adolescence, but medical marijuana dispensaries have taken it to a new level. as congressman polis indicated, indicates the number of persons under 25 who use marijuana last year is now 9.5% above the national average. according to a survey done by doctor christian thurston of

denver health, over 60% of teenagers presently being treated for marijuana addiction in colorado, and that number is rising significantly, report that their source for the drug is a medical marijuana patient. medical marijuana has also significantly impacted the acceptability of the drug to teenagers. by acceptability i made the perception of risk. when the perception of the risk of the drug decreases, teenage use increases. look at the handout i've supplied from the national institute of health. it's the first one with the graph, marijuana use on the rise. it shows the clear relationship between teenage marijuana use and the perceived risk. look, for example, in the late '70s when the perception of risk was at its highs, or at its lowest marijuana use was at its highest. look at 1992 when marijuana use by teenagers but at the national was at its lowest, the perception of risk was at its highs. and alarmingly after a 10 year

decrease in teenage marijuana use, over the last 10 years prior to 2009, we are announcing significant increases, which correspond decreased perception of risk as indicated on the handout. in 2009 alone, daily marijuana use, daily marijuana use among eighth, 10th and 12? increased over 10%. it was up 16% among eighth graders. they should be of no surprise. when alaska decriminalized marijuana in the 1970s teenage use of the drug increased significantly to twice the national average. today, alaska has the highest per capita ratio of illicit drug use in the nation. so why is increased teenage use of the drug a problem? ladies and gentlemen, as congressman polis indicated, in 1979 when marijuana was at an all time high, the average thc potency was two, 2.5%. in 2000 average thc potency was 10%. i brought you a handout prepared

by doctor bertha madras of the harvard medical school about the impact of marijuana on the brain, particularly the adolescent brain. if you don't read anything else that i've given you tonight, please read that handout. the consequences are dramatic entrance of language, memory, motor coordination, and other learning skills, and earlier onset of psychosis. it also indicates marijuana is much more addictive than many people think, particularly for adolescence. according to a report released by the national center on addiction and substance abuse at columbia university, just last month, one in four americans who began using drugs before age 18 become addicts. compared to one and 25 to begin using after the age of 21. of legalization advocates on this panel will talk about the cost of law enforcement efforts and possibly the revenue benefits for government for legalization. but folks, that's what i called

blind side economics. they will come close to actually describing the cross of increased drug use that will come from legalization. in colorado alone in the school year we have a 34% increase of the school explosion. that will translate to much higher loss of revenue, high school dropouts, health care cost, criminal activities. and make the mistake about it, drug abusers commit crimes. in the last year alone the number of impaired driving in colorado who tested positive for marijuana increased by 35%. we have a significant identity theft problem in colorado. the fact is two-thirds of those arrested for identity theft are drug addicts. three quarters of burglars, robbers, read this and other offenders in our state have a substance abuse problem. six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs and those looking for money for drug. i would look forward to your questions and your discussion. thank you very much.

[applause] >> our next speaker is ethan nadelmann, the founder and executive director of the new york city based nonprofit organization drug policy alliance. this is the leading organization in the u.s. promoting, excuse me, alternatives to the war on drugs. describe a rolling stone as quote, the appointment for drug policy reform efforts, mr. newman is one of the world's most respected and high profile critics and commentators on u.s. and international drug control policies. please join in welcoming mr. ethan nadelmann. [applause] >> thank you very much, rohn. is a pleasure to be here at the. it's been about a decade. i'm very happy to be in colorado, which is very likely, i say quite possibly going to become the first state in the united states to choose to end marijuana prohibition, come the

election next year. [applause] so thank you, coloradans for taking the lead on that. now, congressman polis make some wonderful points, and many points i would make about this. at the attorney general, john suthers responded. let me do a bit of a giveaway in way of response. and as he spoke was probably about drug policy as well as more nearly about marijuana, let me do the same. the first thing is, here's my perspective. i've had of the drug policy alliance, lead organization in the country. we just opened an office in colorado. our new colorado director if you. we're not out there saying legalize all drugs can put them in 7-eleven and treat them like alcohol and tobacco. our perspective is one that says there has never been a drug-free society. there's never going to be a drug-free society whether we like it or not. and ultimately we had no choice as a society, children, parents, grandparents, citizens, what have you, but to accept the fact

that drugs are here. and that the challenge for us is not how to build a moat between those drug ourselves, between the strokes and her children is not how to keep them at bay at any cost or gets out of any price and bear any burden in order to abolish drugs from the face of our society. rather, it is to accept the reality that they are here to stay. and to figure out how do we learn how to live with the reality of drugs in our society. so they cost the least possible harm, and in some cases, the greatest possible good. now, my definition of the best drug policy is one that tries to accomplish two things. first, it tries to reduce the negative consequences of drug use. it try to reduce the addiction and the disease and the suffering and the criminality, the destruction of family, and all the bad things that we know. all sorts of drugs, legal and

illegal. and secondly, we have to reduce the negative consequences of our drug control policies, of our drug prohibition policies, the best drug policy to my mind is one that reduces the harms of drugs and arms of the drug control policies. reduces the crime and the fires, the corruption, the violence in mexico and the black markets and the people dying, and all of the negative consequences of prohibition. it's that objective right there. i think it's shameful that america, our country of freedom should lead the world when it comes to the incarceration of our fellow citizens. less than 5% of the world population, but almost 25% of the world incarcerated population, ranking first in the world in incarceration rates, the russians keep huffing and puffing to keep up with this. they can't. we have left them in the dust. i rates of incarceration, seven times countries in europe even though those rates of drug use are not determined by ours.

what we do is rely on incarceration in a way that is exceptional. and in a way that does not dignify our country, our constitution, or our values. now, i'm not saying make all the stuff legal. i'm saying it's time to begin to roll back this war on drugs. this knee-jerk preference for relying on the criminalization system and criminal justice is not the way to go. that the right way to do with addiction is through the health care system. as a health matter. that the right way to do with people who use drugs and do no harm to others is to leave them alone. and the right way to do with people who do harm to others, given the will of the car when they're under the influence of a drug, legal or a live, to go out and commit violent crime or predator crime is to hold him accountable and punish them. their drug use should not be an excuse. those basic notions of freedom,

compassion, and responsibility are my core bias when bias when it comes to do with drugs in our society. now, of course, it's a lot like what we do with what i'll call prohibition in this country. good many people said let's make this stuff and legal so that we can eliminate, abolish alcohol from our society. it initially looked like is going to work, but by the end it was as much i call being consumed as at the beginning. far more in the way of hard liquor and beer because al capone did want to fill those drug for something that was mostly water. and people, hundreds of thousands of people being lined, killed by bootleg liquor that was more dangerous because it was illegal. and what are we dealing with today? a global black market, political harris and others, these are getting money from the club was going on mexico and colombia, the caribbean. all significantly the consequences of a failed prohibitionist policy.

look at the spread of hiv/aids because we don't treat the primary as a health issue. look at the number of people dying of overdose fatalities because we don't treat death primary as a health issue. we need a fundamental change. we need to stop blocking -- locking up people for simple drug possession. we need to make available to serve as the can help families deal with addiction. and when it comes to marijuana, we have to take it out of the criminal justice system. i'm not saying that doing so is risk-free. i'm not saying that making marijuana legal and regulated it more or less like wine or hard liquor will not result in some increased of people using marijuana. i'm not saying that marijuana is entirely safe. god knows that i've known people been addicted to marijuana and struggled with it. but what i am saying, speaking from an economic perspective, of cost and benefits, speaking from a scientific perspective of the relative risk of marijuana compared on the other drugs that are out there, and speaking

fundamentally from an ethical and moral perspective, about what it means to live in a society where we are arresting over 800,000 people a year for marijuana possession. where on any one night 15, thousand people are behind bars for a marijuana offense. where we are empowering and enriching mexican organized criminals and other organized criminals. and the fundamental notion of human freedom and of our sovereignty of our own minds and bodies is being negated and disparaged by the notion that anybody can be drug tested, picked up, fired from the job even if you're the best employee, sent away and arrested for quote unquote driving under the lives of marijuana because they test positive marijuana. it turns out what they're testing positive because they smoked a joint four days ago in a perfectly straight, but the laws don't reflect that. it's about a rational policy perspective to marijuana.

it's about moving into a direction, yes, medical marijuana was really about the medical problem and medical patients, and the people who use it for medicine, but my hope has always been that if it provides a model for how we could responsibly regulate marijuana in the future. i do what marijuana being sold as a free for all at 7-11's. i want a responsible intelligent public health policy when it comes to marijuana. i want to of taxation rates that can discourage consumption. i want of adequate education. i want resources they will for the people who get in trouble with this. but i also want to point out to you that when you look around the world and when you look especially at the netherlands which is the country that more or less semi-legalized it back in the late 1970s and '80s, and which are struck with a legal registry policy for the last several years, when all is said and done, that policy is one in which the number of young people and adults, a percentage of the population using marijuana is less than it is in the united states.

it's one in which the percentage of young people who use marijuana and go on to try harder drugs is less than in the united states, because the dutch have effectively separated out the two markets. you don't buy your drugs from the same drug dealer in the netherlands were as you do in the united states. if they're talking up a bit now, nonetheless the policies in place and it provides evidence that we can legally regulate marijuana without suffering the negative consequences. the issue about adolescence, three surveys now show that high school and junior and seniors and say it is easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol. when i think about who will use marijuana more if it's legal, i don't think you'll be the adolescence. ..

instead of cops all around america and d.a.'s around america arresting or prosecuting and doing all sorts of things to mostly young to mostly people of color who are getting busted on marijuana, maybe they'll be able to focus greater attentions on more serious crimes, more violent crimes, more challenging crimes, whether they're white color crimes or blue collar crimes. it's not a panacea. i can tell you if colorado votes to legalize in 2012 and please do and i hope the same is true

for folks in washington state which may have an initiative, it's not going to be simple and easy. there's no flick to switch and we move in a orderly regulated world. the attorney general is going to be called upon to enact that law and implement that law in good faith, and i hope he will, if he wins. it's going to require people to step up to the plate. it's going to require people who make money from this to be responsible. when i look at the people involved in the medical marijuana industry today, i see some people who are just in it for the money and i see some people who are among the most ethical decent people i've ever met who care about the product they're providing and who care about the patients their serving and who care about operating within responsible regulations and laws. you can actually provide a future and it's a future in which we'll have drug policies grounded not in ignorant fear, prejudice and profit but in

science, in passion, health and human rights. thank you. [applause] >> our last panelist is anthony coulson who recently retired from the drug enforcement administration where he was the assistant special agent in charge of the dea's tucson district office and directed the federal government drug enforcement strategy in southern arizona. mr. coulson is a consultability of ncp international and part of adaphe and he focuses on substance abuse policy for the u.s. and international organizations in governments. please join me in welcoming mr. coulson. [applause] >> well, thank you.

it's nice to be in colorado instead of tucson where it's very hot. i come from 28 years of experience on the streets of a number of places around the world and in the united states. and much that dr. nadelmann has said i agree. we can spin numbers all day long to say what we want to say. but what i'm here for is i'm kind of in a different mode. i was asked to give you a presentation on what the border looks like. and this is not a good picture. it's not a good picture at all right now. and so i want to show you what it is and talk to you. those are my views. i just can't understand why you

would want to add another thing to the mix. i just can't do it. when was the last time we had a national dialog, a real national dialog on drug abuse? it was -- next slide and i have to work with the booth up there so please be patient. it was when we had a drug agent killed in mexico. next. and lastly, the attorney general mentioned it, nancy reagan, just say no. made jokes about it. it was on saturday night live. but it's the last time that we really had a national dialog on drug and substance abuse. alcohol and substance abuse. so let me show you what it looks like, the border. next slide. go ahead. this is our international border. and you've heard a lot of people say -- a lot of politicians get up and say we need to secure the

border. well, as someone who has been on the border for a very long time, next slide, our border -- next slide, our border -- this is next to impossible to secure. you have 2,000 miles of border, in some remote territory of the united states. it is an extremely difficult thing to do. could we secure it? yes. will it take a lot of resources. yes. is it the answer to our problem? no, it's not. next slide. i wanted to show you some numbers because i just wanted to put in context what the situation is. these are from the el paso intelligence center, a federally run operation these represent the seizures that have been made in those calendar years. seizures. now, seizures are not a good indicator of success. they are a good indicator of

availability when put together with price and purity. and they do tell you a story on trends and where we are as a country in our relationship with mexico. with cocaine, and we've had a lot of information about coca e cocaine, how it's plateaued through mexico and south america. it did plateau but we've seen a tremendous rise of the amount of seizures that have occurred along the southwest border especially in the last two years. in the last two years, in the two years of this present administration. methamphetamine with the controls that dea, the u.s. government worked out with mexico and china to control su doephedrine in mexico, we had a tremendous impact on the

methamphetamine availability in the united states. tremendous impact. the problem is, is that after that, the mexican cartels figured out another way to produce. we're back to rates, back to low price, and purity on the street that is high. we've lost ground in the past two years of this administration on methamphetamine. next slide. heroin, heroin use has skyrocketed in the united states. this is what you're looking at maps identically to the rise prescription opiate abuse in the united states which is the fastest growing drug threat in america is heroin use. oxycot continue pill, $100 on

the street. a hit of heroin, $10 on the street in some cases. it's a cheaper high and ones that leads to intravenous drug use which leads us to problems. again, the seizure rate is phenomenal along the border. next slide. this is what the cartels look like in the mid-2007. after this violence began to occur, the guzman organization, the juarez cartel we had violence with the sinalon cartel, and we had cartels go after each other as that broke up. next slide. a lot of this was the violence that occurred. brutal, brutal violence in mexico. stuff where you can't even

imagine the inhumanity of it all. next slide. and this is what the cartels like now. with the sinaloa cartel controls most of mexico and the u.s. border. we've had a lot of mexican government activity targeted at other cartels but not the sinaloa cartel and what has emerged is a very powerful cartel in mexico. next slide. marijuana, dr. nadelmann, congressman polis is correct in that marijuana is the largest cash-generating operation of a cartel. marijuana, if there was no marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine would collapse

in on itself, just logistically not enough money for a cartel to traffic in those drugs. now you may say that that supports congressman polis and dr. nadelmann's theory on legalizing marijuana that affects the cartel. i don't buy into that. after 28 years, i just -- that's not a conclusion that i would come to. but as you can see, marijuana is king. the -- one thing i wanted talk about marijuana is, this is a great indicator of successful supply side strategies and they may be counterintuitive what you're seeing in the seizure rates and when we see spikes on that side of the border of marijuana, it means that we are doing an effective enforcement

job against cartels. this is a stress indicator. the more stress you put on a organization, the more marijuana that they will grow and produce because this is what buys the corruption and things that you need in order to struggle against other cartels. next slide. keep going. i want to ask this question because this has nothing to do with drug trafficking. and this has to do with the theory that if we legalize marijuana we cut the violence in mexico. this is a rape tree. that's a black bra hanging from a tree. this is the price that immigrants who are smuggled across the border pay to smuggling groups. it has nothing to do with drugs. and i would suggest that the violence in mexico is not a

product of our consumption use, although it's a contributing factor. the reason for violence in mexico is because it is something that they have inherited from their colonial masters, the spanish and the french, a long time ago. a very provocative statement, but i stand by that. next one. again, another tree. go ahead. deaths in the border along with human trafficking. this is what occurs. hundreds and hundreds of people die in the desert every year. next, what controls mexico, not the mexican government. the oligarchy of mexico.

another provocative statement but until you impact the only impact it will have is impact on sanctioning the government of mexico for not cooperating with us. and sanctioning the oligarchy of mexico. we start to impact their ability to trade on trade we're going to have a positive impact on drug trafficking into this country. but my biggest concern with legalization are these folks, go ahead. next slide. those that come back come back, who medicate. we haven't done enough for these folks right here. and that's -- that's the end of this slide show. i wanted to be -- the presentation was, it's not a good situation. i had great hopes for this administration in investing in treatment and prevention. it hasn't happened.

i had great hopes for this administration on a number of issues in the past two years we have lost ground on the supply side of drugs in law enforcement working with prevention treatment partners can have an environmental impact on the health and quality of life of a community working together. so that's -- that's why i wanted to talk about -- it's been a lot of years. i have some colleagues sitting in here, you know, again, i go back to the a.g.'s comments on the fact that you don't see addicts up here talking about those -- those in recovery talking about legalization of drugs. you don't see prevention folks here talking about the legalization of drugs. you don't see treatment folks and you don't see the law

enforcement officers on the street who have to deal with our country's inability to invest in fixing people, healing families and inoculating our children we just don't invest enough. in countries like portugal, the netherlands, we can do those things. but we haven't invested enough in those to do it. you can't flip the switch on legalization at this point 'cause, one, there's no evidence to do it. the fda is still waiting for phase 3 data to show that marijuana is a medically accepted drug. and we're not prepared because we haven't invested in getting the beds, the people to fix those that are going to go into the cycle of addiction once you turn that legalization switch off. that's it for me. i look forward for your

questions a little bit later. [applause] >> let me ask the panelists to please come up and take their seats. what we're going to do now we'll have 30 minute of debate which i hope to direct in some meaningful way. and then we'll open it up to the audience for about 20 minutes after that. the first thing i need to do is dr. nadelmann. i want to ask the first question, and that is why marijuana? an argument is often posed against the legalization of marijuana is that it's a gateway drug. however, it seems unequivocal to most people that alcohol is even more of a gateway drug. why then is alcohol and should

alcohol be tolerated and marijuana should not? not only is alcohol is tolerated but welcomed into most social settings even political fundraisers, advocacy campaigns. why marijuana? >> let me first of all say it's interesting the sheet that i passed out to you indicates at the same time that marijuana use by teenagers is increasing, actually alcohol use -- underage alcohol use has been decreasing. one of the other studies that i brought with me here is one that has recently come out, about the correlation to adolescent marijuana use and early onset of psychosis. that is not the case with alcohol. i think more research needs to be done but based on -- if you read through the materials that i supplied of the doctor from the harvard medical school, i

think you'll find that she points out some differences between alcohol and marijuana that are significant. now, i'm not about to suggest that our alcohol situation in the united states is a good one. it's terrible. it's incredibly costly to us. in fact, something that we should take note -- you know, they're saying hey, we'll tax this. we'll get everybody in treatment and everything, the cost of alcohol abuse to us in this country are ten times what we take in, in revenue. and we can fully expect the costs of drug abuse including marijuana use to far exceed we'll take in, in revenue. >> let me say just a few things. first of all, with respect to the gateway theory of marijuana be, i'd say it's more or less an ounce of truth embedded into a pound of bull. what i mean on the one hand, you know, the large majority of people who use heroin and cocaine did, in fact, use

marijuana and alcohol and for that matter milk first. the vast majority of people who use marijuana never go on to get involved with cocaine or heroin or to use it. never become regular marijuana users, you know, you don't have an effective gateway. you use to use medicine back in 1980s. so i think the notion of trying to prevent alcohol and addiction is heroin and marijuana abuse it's to preventing motorcycle fatalities is by preventing them from riding a bicycle. with respect to alcohol is the reason we tolerate it is because the consequences of prohibition are horrific as we know making it illegal is not the right thing to do. we've seen the failure in our society and making others try it makes no sense. when you compare marijuana and alcohol there's no association with marijuana with violent behavior and alcohol.

there's no association of reckless sexual behavior as there is with alcohol. with rape. you just don't see it. you see it with alcohol and some of those but not with marijuana. so even with respect to driving under the influence clearly you shouldn't smoke marijuana and drive but when you look at the dozens of studies that have been done in that driving under the influence of alcohol is clearly a dangerous thing to do. on the other hand, there are many people who are experienced marijuana users who drive and they cannot be distinguished in controlled studies from people who are totally straight. you're smoking a new high grade marijuana you're a novice marijuana user that's not true. let's be clear about the relative risk alcohol is the more dangerous drug. >> let me address this quickly. first of all, on the data, you know, i don't know if marijuana in young people has gone up but honestly may have gone up but when something has a criminal

sanction there people that are still using marijuana but they are telling some pollster who calls them that they're not. that's part of the conflict there as well. it's interesting even -- i think i have no idea if it's gone up or not. if it has and alcohol use has gone down that's rather interesting because there's a constitution effect there and, looks i represent the university of colorado and boulder and every year there's a couple related deaths. alcohol poisoning and heroin-related deaths. i have not heard of a strictly marijuana-related death. alcohol kills people here. i'm going to be a father in a few months and fast forward i sure hope my kid isn't using alcohol or marijuana but if they're using one, it's a close call which one you'd rather your son or daughter use. they're both bad. alcohol can kill them before marijuana can kill them. easy for a 16-year-old who doesn't know how to drink kill themselves with alcohol. it's a lot harder for them to

die from marijuana. >> i guys need to get out on the streets more. i talked to hundreds and hundreds of meth difficulties. we got a meth project here in colorado, the colorado meth project and i asked them about legalization of marijuana. they are vehemently opposed because of their experience as marijuana users progressing on to other drugs. i also want you folks to check out the headline tomorrow morning, there's a terrible incident in florida today where they caught a young man who had been expelled from a school and they have uncovered a plot where he was going to blow up the school on the first day. he wanted to exceed what had happened at columbine. pipe bombs all over the house everything else. notice when the story comes out tomorrow find out what else was found. >> talking about getting out a little more, when you open your

comment about advocates of drug policy reform and legalization you're going to find them guys like them and not elsewhere let me tell you something -- there's now a organization mothers united against the war of drugs who have seen the worst of drug addiction can do. they've struggled with their families and life and they are supporting legalization of marijuana, responsible policy. there is now an organization called l.e.a.p., hundreds of if not thousands of officers who went up against dangerous drug traffickers and dealers and they're saying the policy is a failure. you look at congress -- you look in congress right now. you look in congress right now it's not just jared and barney frank or ron paul supporting this. charlie rangel who chaired the select committee on electronics is now on side with us. jesse jackson leaving drugs where they are onside of us. the leaders in many state legislators people of color have seen what the drug war, what drugs do but what the drug war have done to their community and

they are out there fighting against it. you come to our bienal gathering a few months now in l.a. you will see people in recovery for 20 years and they'll say you know something? the drug war did nothing to protect me or other people. it put my people behind me bars. i have two brothers one an alcoholic and drug user why did they get treatment. some are saying enough is enough. mra[applause] >> let me known one huge myths 150 million arrests of marijuana. you say arrests majority of them were issued a summons of petty offense for $100 fine three-tenths of the colorado prison population is there for possession or use of marijuana having pled down from significantly more serious offenses. nobody goes to prison in colorado for possession or use of marijuana or any other drug

on a first offense. the people that are there for drug offenses for the most part are either -- are all are total nonviolent prisons are felonies -- >> so quickly on that, again, 850,000 -- each one of those you talked about the fee or fine might be but it represents several thousand dollars of adjudication to the system and you know that with everything that occurs. secondly, a couple things on this that our attorney general said. first of all, it's the first time that in making an argument as to why we should do something, somebody quoted what the meth addicts, you've got to do this. let me tell you when you talk to people who have used marijuana, there's no such thing as far as i know of somebody who is -- like their whole life is a recovered marijuana user. i mean, they're regular people who use marijuana in college and now they're politicians and lawyers and doctors and many of

my colleagues in congress, they could that be up for president of the united states. our last couple presidents. look, and we are all, john, i mean, talking about this from our personal experience, in many cases they themselves have used marijuana and talking about it. in other cases, i've had family members who have dealt with this issue. i had a high school friend who died of a heroin overdose. i've had cousins who dealt with cocaine diagnosis. my immediate family members had immediate drug abuse. you're coming from an experience where we lived in this country where we dealt with this issue. >> one point of this myth that we're doing with people that are using and possessing drugs. 90% of the people in alcohol and drug treatment in the state of colorado are there at court referral. they did not walk in off the streets. part of the basis of this is that our drug addicts that result from this legislation that we have all kinds of money to treat them and they're just

going to voluntarily walk in off the streets. >> john, millions of people have showed up at aa and na without being forced by law enforcement. hundreds of thousands of people have shown up in methadone groups, people show up. those people in the middle class they have a drug problem they will go to a program. they go to their personal physician one of the advantages of the health care plan that was passed a couple of years ago is at least people will be able to obtain treatment not by going to isolated oftentimes segregated collins but going to -- dealing with this issue with the ordinary health care system and that's the way it should be. >> 90% of folks in alcohol and drug treatment -- >> i want to move on to two different topics. mr. coulson paraphrased something that i'm quite fond of saying that i agree with much of somebody i disagree with had to say, i just come to a different conclusion. we've all identified what half of the panel believes is a problem. and half the panel believes maybe isn't quite so much a problem and i want to ask this

question. what alternatives are there that would not include legalization or would also decriminalize medical marijuana. are there approaches other than prosecution of marijuana possession that might prove more effective than treating the use and possession of marijuana as a criminal matter? >> there already is, the problem is that states struggle with funding to create drug courts in a comprehensive manner. in arizona, you have drug courts and, you know, in the phoenix metropolitan area. you have drug courts in tucson. but there's no drug courts in the outcounties, in the rural areas. drug courts are great -- a great place to be where you have -- where you set up a -- [inaudible] >> portugal put a plan in place and it's